Ohio 10-year-old’s alleged illegal immigrant rapist, 27, was listed as minor in abortionist’s report to state

Loading

By Thomas Catenacci

The Guatemalan illegal immigrant charged with raping and impregnating an Ohio 10-year-old who traveled to Indiana for an abortion was listed as a minor in the report the Indiana-based abortionist sent to authorities.
 

Dr. Caitlin Bernard reported that the alleged rapist was approximately 17-years-old in an official filing to the Indiana Department of Health obtained Thursday by Fox News Digital. On Wednesday, Ohio authorities charged 27-year-old Gerson Fuentes, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, with rape of a minor under 13 years old in the case.

 
Fuentes confessed to the crime to Columbus Police Department investigators, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement Wednesday.
 
However, the 10-year-old’s mother said her daughter was “fine” and “everything they say about [Gerson Flores] is a lie” when confronted Thursday by a Telemundo reporter.
 


 

The alleged rape made headlines earlier this month after Bernard told The Indy Star on July 1 she had performed an abortion for a young rape victim who she said was forced to cross state lines from Ohio in order to receive the procedure. Ohio implemented a six-week abortion ban shortly after the Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which granted women the federal right to an abortion.

 
“It’s hard to imagine that in just a few short weeks we will have no ability to provide that care,” Bernard told The Indy Star at the time, referencing a potential similar abortion ban that could go into effect in Indiana following the high court’s ruling.
 
Following Bernard’s comments, President Biden referenced the incident during a speech on July 11 and, on July 3, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem was asked during a CNN interview whether she would force young victims of rape “to have a baby.”
 
In addition, after Fuentes was charged Wednesday, Republican Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita announced he would investigate Bernard for failing to report the abortion, saying “failure to do so constitutes a crime in Indiana.” But the documents obtained Thursday by Fox News Digital show Bernard successfully filed the proper report with the state on July 2.
 
“My client, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician,” Bernard’s lawyer Kathleen DeLaney said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “She followed all relevant policies, procedures and regulations in this case, just as she does every day to provide the best possible care for her patients.”
 
“She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer,” DeLaney continued. “We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client, including Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, and know that the facts will all come out in due time.”

Read more
 

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
68 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bernard should see her medical license suspended and she should be arrested

BERNARD SHOULD BE HELP TOTALY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WHOLE THING CHARGE THEM WITH BEING A ACCEMECE TO THE RAPISTS GIVE THEM 50 YEARS GIVE THE R APISS lIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AND MAKE THEIR OPEN BORDERS IIDOTS PAY FOR THEIR UPKEEP

The doctor reported the age she was told. Do you imagine the rapist came in with the child for the consultation? The information she had was what the girl or family provided. The FACT that she had to deal with professionally and compassionately was a pregnant 10-year-old child. You would nail her to a cross for doing so, for the sake of your backward, f*cked up politics.

Idiot republicans who first denied the story, and then attacked the doctor by claiming she didn’t comply with the law, are now reduced to waving around an irrelevant detail in an effort to cover their worthless, lying asses.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

The doctor reported the age she was told.

Prove it.

Idiot republicans who first denied the story

Apparently you are too damn stupid to know the difference between saying a story is not true and questioning the validity of a story. Perhaps you would like to tell us who you are referring to as having “denied” the story? But I doubt it. Your m.o. is to let your mouth write checks your ass can’t cash.

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

How else would the doctor have known an age to give? Do you imagine the rapist told her? The doctor would have no motive for lying. Her patient’s unfortunate situation didn’t depend on the age of the rapist one way or the other. If anything, a responsible adult male would be even more reason to pity the plight of the child, and sympathize with the doctor’s decision to help her—assuming, of course, that one is more concerned with compassion for the child than politics.

Since your own assertion is the illogical one, it’s up to you to prove otherwise.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

How else would the doctor have known an age to give? Do you imagine the rapist told her?

No, he was still kicked back in the recliner sucking down cervezas. It wasn’t until WE began asking questions and demanding answers (y’all didn’t care about the rape, just using the girl as a prop for unlimited and unrestricted abortion) that we found out about the rapist.

I realize that you are clueless as to the behavior of children, being yourself childless, but do you really think that a 10 year old girl who has been raped knew the age of her rapist and told abortion advocate, Dr. Caitlin Bernard? Or was it the mother who told the abortionist the age of the rapist?

There are more holes in this story that a 5 pound hunk of Swiss cheese.

Do you think the 10-year-old drove herself from Ohio to Indiana? Consider the possibility that someone else provided inaccurate details to the doctor.

I realize that you are clueless as to the behavior of children, being yourself childless, but do you really think that a 10 year old girl who has been raped knew the age of her rapist and told abortion advocate, Dr. Caitlin Bernard? 

I don’t think ANY of this happened, either the way Democrats have illegally reported it, or at all.

We need libel and slander laws to take away Dems propaganda tools such as the Russia Collusion hoax and this new “10 year old rape” hoax.

RESPECT THE LAW AND THE SC.

It’s a branch of government.

Nathan, as you already know, Comrade Greggie will use this story to advocate for the slaughter of unborn children, one at a time, and could care less that a little girl, only 10, was raped. Who the rapist was is not important to him, just that an unborn child was murdered.

You seem to care more about children that don’t yet exist than those that actually do. The GOP perversely reflects that attitude. Hence, my growing contempt.

Comrade Greggie, you showed no concern for the violated little girl. Your only concern was with what you believed was her inability to get an abortion in Ohio.

Had you been concerned for the little girl you would have been wanting to know if the rapist has been arrested. But you never mentioned that because YOU DID NOT CARE.

An abortion was the one meaningful remedy to the child’s situation—which the Ohio GOP deprived her of. All you care about is that it points out the evil consequences of a law devoid of all compassion for a who already exists.

You have no compassion for millions of women who have deeply personal reasons for choosing not to continue a pregnancy.

An abortion was the one meaningful remedy to the child’s situation—which the Ohio GOP deprived her of.

No, they didn’t. She could have gotten an abortion in Ohio. Her mother was too busy trying to cover it up. Why do you INSIST on being a f**king liar?

Seriously? Greg we immediately wanted the perp arrested, you wanted her to have privacy to be molested over and over. Maybe she has a little sister the perp was raping as well. Nope the libs want to keep abortions and birth control for kids secret from the parents. Sexualize them in school and let them get nasty STDs.

You seem to care more about children that don’t yet exist than those that actually do.

It is YOU that doesn’t have a single concern that a 9 year old girl was raped by her mother’s boyfriend and the mother and Bernard tried to cover it up. All you care about is using misery and tragedy to promote your death cult.

The circumstances and absurdity of the story pretty much make it dismissable in the greater discussion about abortion.

Like the Russia hoax and every other concocted story about Trump, it’s typical lowbrow propaganda meant to do the uneducated and easily duped constituency of the Democrat Party.

If we could just get these people a little more education, I think things would change for the better.

The left relies on the average uneducated, ignorant voter to give them support by way of simple deception.

Idiot republicans who first denied the story, and then attacked the doctor by claiming she didn’t comply with the law, are now reduced to waving around an irrelevant detail in an effort to cover their worthless, lying asses.

The story WAS a lie, dumbass. The girl never had to leave Ohio to get the abortion she (her wetback parents) waited 6 weeks, right up to the last minute, to get. With the left’s penchant for lying (and they were, and they LIE about everything, including lying that abortion is banned), it was reasonable to doubt the girl even existed, but the PRIMARY objection was with the LIE that because of the cruel, unfair, onerous abortion laws, she had to cross state lines for an abortion.

But note that it wasn’t until REPUBLICANS began asking questions and demanding answers that it was discovered who the rapist was and he was arrested. Or, is that simply something you didn’t care about?

Read the applicable Ohio law. The girl was over six weeks, the point at which a fetal heartbeat is detectable using special instruments. There are only two exceptions at that point to Ohio’s current abortion ban:

  • “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” or
  • “to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman”

It’s possible that it could be successfully argued in court that one of these exceptions might apply; whether the doctor performing such an abortion would be imprisoned and have his or her license pulled would depend on the sympathies of a judge or jury, not on any degree of medical certainty.

Dave Yost is holding out the possibility that a doctor wouldn’t be charged, or would be acquitted, as if it were a legitimate exception to a draconian law. IT ISN’T. It’s just a way of denying the real world consequences of an oppressive, inhumane Ohio law, passed against the will of a majority of the population.

The girl was over six weeks, 

But, two weeks after she was raped, she was not over six weeks. Three weeks after she was raped, she was not over six weeks. FOUR weeks after she was raped, she was not over six weeks. Even FIVE weeks after she was raped, she was not over six weeks. Is this not true?

And, even OVER six weeks, she was still eligible for an abortion under Ohio law. So, the story is a complete and total lie.

Do parents normally check their 10-year-old daughters weekly for pregnancy?

I’m not wasting any more of my evening on such stupidity.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Do parents normally check their 10-year-old daughters weekly for pregnancy?

They do if she’s been raped, you stupid asshole. And if they don’t, who’s fault is that?

I’m not wasting any more of my evening on such stupidity.

The entire time greg spends here is a total waste of his time. His comments do nothing but create circular meaningless conversations. He is a paid troll as Nathan Blue says. No commenter comes here regularly to be dismissed time and time again. If he is not being paid then he is more stupid than anyone could have imagined.

Consider my visits a measure of the danger you idiots represent to a nation and Constitution that I twice took an oath to protect.

If they suspect, they either take immediate action, or are unfit parents and criminally negligent. “Checking weekly” because they “suspect” puts a parent into the second category.

You should stop wasting your life on all of the stupidity that you post here.

You’re a paid troll, or a quisling.

Both are quite disgusting, and direct enemies with the United States of America.

Run on home, boy.

The religious wing of the Trump cult: Fed Up Texas Paul SLAMS Republicans for saying there is no Separation of Church and State

This is precisely what Billy Graham warned Christians about.

“The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.”

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

The religious wing of the Trump cult: Fed Up Texas Paul SLAMS Republicans for saying there is no Separation of Church and State

Speaking of a waste of time…

There is no Constitutional separation of church and state. That is a myth.

Blowing off the FIRST statement of the FIRST Amendment is an accurate measure of constitutional ignorance.

There is no Constitutional separation of church and state. That is a myth.

The Myth of the Separation of Church and State
comment image

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, “Separation of Church and State”. Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: “separation”, “church”, and “state” do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads…

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

 

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to a church (the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut). The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson’s letter from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was written to affirm first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

 

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)

 

The reason Jefferson chooses the expression “separation of church and state” was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist’s own prominent preachers. Williams had said:

 

When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…(2)

 

The “wall” was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

 

I know all about the separation of church and state.

 

For seven years one of my relatives, Rev. John Greenwood, the half-brother of my great (x13) grandfather, was confined in prison and finally on the sixth of April 1593, was taken from jail in England and hanged for his belief and teaching of – the separation of church and state.

 

That little band of Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth, Mass., in 1620, were his followers — they had worshipped at the church he founded — that band of Puritans that landed in America and founded Boston were believers in the doctrine that John Greenwood was the first to publish and teach – the separation of church and state.

 

The Pilgrims at Plymouth brought to America the teachings of John Greenwood — including the separation of church and state — and if America owes its greatness, its progress, and its achievements to one principle in government more than another it is that in America every American can kneel at the altar of his own faith, and worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. The state in America is separated from the church. American government tolerates no single form of religious worship but shelters and protects alike all. John Greenwood taught that there could be but one head of the church and that head was not a King or Queen but Jesus Christ, and that there could be no law for the government of the church other than what the Scriptures contained.

 

Both the phrase and concept of the separation of church and state used by Thomas Jefferson and Roger Williams came directly from the teachings of Rev. John Greenwood.

 

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. 

 

The people did not want freedom FROM religion, but freedom OF religion.

 

The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God’s ways were much higher than Man’s ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

 

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

 

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960’s. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God, one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness and justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble — the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country’s.

 

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed, and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous number of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man’s heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that’s why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

 

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles, and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians. (3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. 

 

If it was their intention to separate the state and church, they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king…” The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he cannot exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? 

 

People have read too much into the phrase “separation of church and state”, which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

 

Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said… 

 

“God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.” (4)

 

In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited.

 

For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn’t want prayer in government, why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, “In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year-old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time… the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law.” (4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, “…there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality.” This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

 

What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God’s protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990’s — even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

 

Satan is not a creator. He cannot create anything. All he can do is take that which God has created and ‘twist’ it upside-down and call it something else. God created good – Satan twisted it into evil. God created love – Satan twisted it into hate. God created faith – Satan twisted it into fear. Do you see how he works?

 

Satan also twists the good things that man has created as well. To the point – our founding fathers, many of which were ministers, created the constitution and its amendments including the First Amendment which provides for legal protection of the Church from the State (i.e., government) – Satan has now twisted that in the minds of the people to “protect” the State and all governmental entities, property, programs, etc.… from the Church – banning the very freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees! The IRS has already gone so far as to tell Pastors what they can and cannot preach and teach in their own churches – threatening to revoke their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status! Now. even though, President Trump, in support of religion freedoms, ordered all federal agencies to cease this and other similar practices, a future President could, just as easily, turn this on its head again.

 

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone’s morality is going to be taught — but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man’s ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history.

 

In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity.

 

This my friends is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

 

Today in the United States, 90% of the population believes in God! 80% of those believe in the Judeo-Christian Ethic (i.e., believe in Jesus). But Hollywood and the media has convinced most Christians that they are – the vast minority! When in fact Christians are the “Silent Majority!” Adolph Hitler once said that if a well-crafted lie is told often enough and long enough it will become as good as the the truth! For example, “the Religious Right” is a totally fictitious entity. There SHOULD be one, but there is no such thing! Christians just haven’t seemed to be able get together long enough to realize the strength they would have if they united politically. Now the “Religious Right” is just a strawman to hide a REAL and very active movement – “the Atheist Left!”

 

“Separation of Church and State,” as touted by the left, is just a myth. But it’s a myth that if allowed to continue will continue to daily chip away our religious freedoms. We just cannot keep quiet about it any longer. Christians must be taught on this subject now – before it becomes illegal to do even that! All evil needs to flourish is for good men – to do (and say) nothing! 

The US is under attack by the woke atheist religionists who seek to abolish all other religions.

Christians continue to defend the right of all Americans to the freedom of their own religion. Only judeo Christianity allows for such things, after all.

Paul’s opinion is lazy, hackneyed, and completely unprovable.
It’s also false.

Leftists are the fundamentalist religionists strawmen from 1983 they claim to be fighting.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nathan Blue

Fools spout such opinions frequently but seldom provide any rational argument to back them up. Instead, you get a chorus of sock puppets singing harmony.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Conservatives’ Attack Against Abortion Provider In Child Rape Case Implodes
Yeah so Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s (R) and other conservatives’ spin on the story of an obstetrician-gynecologist providing an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim just fell apart. Dramatically.

Rokita and others had claimed that the doctor didn’t report the incident and is therefore the real villain in the story. That line of attack completely imploded yesterday when FOX59 used a simple public records request to find out that the doctor had filed a report to Department of Child Services and the Indiana Department of Health.

  • Dr. Caitlin Bernard filed the report within the required three-day time frame, the documents showed.
  • Now Bernard is considering legal action against Rokita and other people who smeared her, the doctor’s lawyer said in a statement.
  • But Rokita plans to move forward with his “investigation” into Bernard anyway. The GOP attorney general said in an official response to FOX59’s report that his office is still “gathering evidence” and that “our legal review of it remains open.”

He should have “gathered evidence” before he opened his stupid mouth and inserted his manure-stained foot into it.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

This “story” never happened.

Move on.

Waited three days. Didn’t report it until she decided to use the story as abortion propaganda. Lied about the rapist’s age. But, most importantly, the girl never had to leave Ohio for an abortion. All theater, all propaganda.

You like being stupid and used for a fool, don’t you?

Oh, she filed a “terminated pregnancy report.” Yea! But what about a “suspected rape report with juvenile officers?” Did anyone, in either Ohio or Indiana, file that police report? I guess Comrade Greggie will tell us that there is no requirement for a doctor to report a crime against a minor.

Obviously not, because the suspected rapist was not arrested (or even identified) until pressure and doubt was put upon the entire story.

But, don’t loose sight of the prime fact: the story WAS an absolute lie. The girl never had to leave Ohio for an abortion. At least the Democrats exploiting this vile tragedy for their political purposes exposed the actual crime and identified the perp (we’ll just have to see if he sees any justice).

Still no answers to the questions from the original article:

who took the child to a doctor in the first place?
why did they choose a doctor that specializes in “child abuse?”
when did that occur?

We were told the Ohio doctor (supposedly) called the abortionist on June 27 and said the child was six weeks, three days pregnant. Why did the Indiana abortionist give the child an abortifacient designed for use in pregnant women less than six weeks gestation on June 30th?

Are there other children in the home that have not been removed from the mother who, it is now reported, is also pregnant by the illegal rapist? Was the raped 10 year old his daughter, as well?

Watch as this story quickly fades from the leftwing press.

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

Grggies says we dont want to care for born children, lets look at a baby formula shortage caused by this inept administration. They didnt know shutting down a factory that supplys 40 % of the formula would have a negative affect. Well lets just do 40 % of our grocery shop and see what happens….only clean 40 % of the poop in Joes depends and find out. Give Joe 40 % of his dementia meds….
comment image

This story is going to run perpetually, with an avalanche of reminders targeting every posturing GOP candidate who supports anti-freedom idiots. Not only that, but new stories will be added, because the GOP’s moronic, repressive laws will generate an unending stream of new cases.

You’ve done something that a majority of American voters disagreed with to begin with. You’ve taken away women’s fundamental right to exercise sovereign control over their own bodies, and you’ve created a situation where their privacy ALSO has to go out the window in order to enforce it.

Watch as this story quickly fades from the leftwing press.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Abortion is murder. The democrat party conducts the killing of babies as a sacrament to their gods of satan

Where in the Constitution does it say that “abortion is murder?” Where does it say that in any State’s constitution??

Abortion is murder. 

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Comrade Greggie, since the U.S. Constitution does not address murder, I suppose you now believe that it should not be illegal to kill someone simply because they are in your way?

Robbing a bank is also NOT addressed by the U.S. Constitution.

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

What does that have to do with MAGA dick-heads robbing women of control of their own bodies?

Robbing a bank is also NOT addressed by the U.S. Constitution.

Since you insist on continuing to prove what an idiot you are, I am now required to inform you that the “control” you speak of comes before conception, not after.

Or are you claiming that all women who become pregnant are victims of rape and didn’t choose to have unprotected sex?

You can’t even tell us what a woman is so what right do you have to speak on women’s rights?

Is THAT in the US Constitution, or any state’s constitution? Nope. It’s nothing more than your opinion—which, for some reason, you believe should rule the lives of others.

You have no liking for choice, personal freedom, or any other fundamental American value. You think the purpose of government is to force others to behave as you believe they should. It’s not enough that you have those choices and freedoms for yourself. They probably frighten you.

I am now required to inform you that the “control” you speak of comes before conception, not after.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

It isnt opinion it is actually in the constitution, what was not written was a states decision.
Robbing raping killing none of it is, God given rights those that are non negotiable things not even the States can outlaw, yet we get the congress senate and executives making gun laws breaking the oath of office.

What is control other than the “choice” you left wing nutcases are always shouting about while you want to remove “choice” from others.

When a woman (that you don’t know what that is) makes a choice to not have unprotected sex, does she get pregnant? Can she get pregnant watching the Don Lemon show? No, moron, she has to make the choice to give her body, which she controls, up to someone else to use. That is forfeiting the “control” you scream about otherwise she is being raped and that is also illegal.

But you are less worried about rape than you are about making sure you offer up the blood of unborn babies to your woke god.

That’s too crazy to comment on.

What is control other than the “choice” you left wing nutcases are always shouting about while you want to remove “choice” from others, etc etc…

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

If you have no control over what happens to you, you cannot make choices on the events in your life. Sorry you’re too damn stupid to understand that.

You also don’t seem to understand cause and effect. Conception is the effect of the cause.

Women who “chose” to not participate in unprotected sex do not get pregnant unless they are artificially inseminated and then, that is their choice.

Did you manage to get out of the 7th grade? If you did, you should sue your former teachers.

That’s too crazy to comment on…..but you did.
You loved when they forced the jabby on people and masked people, closed down businesses. You and your ilk have lost any ground on bodily autonomy.
The Jabby never worked and they knew, the top people at the pharma companies could not travel cause no jabby 4 them. Not safe, not effective but give it to infants, FU and everyone like you.

Last edited 1 year ago by kitt

They have control of their bodies. THEIR bodies.

.test

.Where in the Constitution does it say that “abortion is murder?

Nowhere. Nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned. The states determine what murder is

In the past couple of weeks greg has become OCD on abortion.

Note the Ukraine charade has turned into a disaster. Weapons intended to be used by Ukraine have found their way to the black markets of Europe and are in the hands of gangs etc.

Russia shows no signs of weakening their invasive intentions.

The economy is worse than it has ever been in American history.

And we will soon be upon the one year anniversary of the retreat and surrender of Afghanistan.

Very hard to find a reason to vote the democrat ticket

Of course abortion is murder

07/14/22 – Rep. Eric Swalwell Points Out Misinformation From Anti-Choice Advocate

Watch this pointed exchange between Rep. Eric Swalwell and an anti-choice advocate over whether a 10-year-old rape victim choosing to end a pregnancy constitutes an abortion.

Truth is not the GOP’s friend. Their control is based on lies, deception, and disinformation.

Would that be the same Eric Swalwell that had extremely intimate relations with a Chinese spy?

Oh, why yes, it would be and this traitor is who you go to for an opinion?

Please, continue to provide just how big an idiot you are. It provides comic relief.

Yes, her name, Fang-Fang

He who farts during interview.

Did you have some comment about what he said, or the points he made? Nope. Because all he said is true.

Would that be the same Eric Swalwell that…

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Swalwell is a compromised traitor to our country.

He lies, bombastically and will the intelligence of a carrot.

Dismissed.

And then when the FBI warned him about her being a spy, he warned her so she could escape.

Fartsmell is not a person I look to for integrity or credibility. Remember, he was caught screwing a CCP spy, then warned her when the FBI notified him how stupid he was. It was a lie that the girl had to travel out of Ohio to get an abortion.

The only choice involved in an abortion is the premeditated choice to murder the unborn, full stop.

Last edited 1 year ago by TrumpWon